Ahh if only basketball was entirely black and white, no gray, and stats told the whole story, there were zero intangibles, zero affects on chemistry, and the game was played by programmable robots. At the time, Perkins had more impact on his team's success than Green. Like 32 said, in the same way Bogut does for the Warriors. It's all about context of what you would consider a "win" in the trade. If a win is making your team worse while they are in win-now mode, then the Celtics won the trade. Pretty sure you are the only one on planet earth who'd argue that Krystic starting instead of Perkins made the Celtics a better overall team and didn't decrease their chances of winning a championship. And the stats after the trade tell that story as well.

The comparison to Perkins and Bogut makes no sense. They aren't similar at all, especially not in the impact. We know, through stats that Bogut makes players better on defense through his defense. Perkins does no such thing.

This is the kind of reaction I expect to see as soon as a trade happens. People to view trades only two weeks ahead. This is not the reaction I'd expect when it's been demonstrated consistently now how awful Perkins is, how little of a difference he makes, and how much better Jeff Green is.

The notion the Celtics threw away a chance at a championship is weird as well as their differential indicated "NO CHANCE." Which makes sense. No team has ever won a title without a top five defensive player or a top five player in the league. Which at that point, Celtics had neither going by production. Doubt that years Celtics team would have been the one that broke that rule.

You are missing the point on the Bogut comparison. We're drawing a parallel to Bogut's value that goes beyond statistics. You cannot rebuff that statement with statistics. We are point-blank telling you that we're referring to intangibles that aren't quantified: number of fights started in practice DEMANDING more effort on defense, the percentage of fouls in crunch time HARD enough to prevent a dunk or a lay-up attempt, the contagious game-day intensity, or any number of things Andrew Bogut and Kendrick Perkins provide. You are clawing for something quantifiable because it's easier to make blanket statements off cold, hard numbers that would prove inescapable if this were algebra, but it's not. Things happen in sports that numbers cannot explain. If you truly think that to be impossible, I'm a little heart-broken for you, cause it's the absolute friggin best thing in sports; when a team or player prevails when ALL the numbers and the safe-betters are claiming it would be impossible and inconceivable. Value, in sports, goes beyond numbers.

Perkins' new team got tougher, more defensive-minded, better in crunch time, and just genuinely more successful overall. Perkins' old team became inefficient, guard-oriented, less disciplined, and tended to hang around the middle of the pack or bottom of the playoff seeds (rather than being viewed as title contenders like they were when Perkins was there).

You act like Jeff Green's hollow stats hide the fact that he was a hesitant 4th option, 6th man who only had his head in half the games last year and pissed off his own fan base by blowing up for huge games and following with donuts; whose inconsistency marred the final swing of a dying Celtics core that was BEGGING on pass him the torch (the Celtics did everything they could to make Jeff Green an integral part of their core and he simply shrank when the pressure was on). Kendrick Perkins wasn't a 4th option on offense; he probably wasn't a top 9 guy. But he started at center and vocally orchestrated the defensive end on a team that would have won the NBA title if Russell Westbrook doesn't get cheap-shotted trying to call a time-out. He played a shutdown platoon with Ibaka that scared teams from coming inside. I'll take the big, nasty center who ALWAYS brings the lumber, rather than a potential 30-point, double-double guy who will just as often take less than 6 shots and completely disappear half the games of the season.

We can see the value you are talking about through statistics, though. You may think they are not quanitified, but we know Bogut makes his teammates better on defense. '

Not only that, but that's just false about Perkins. Thunder's defense before the trade was 95.6 points. After was 102.3. They got a lot worse on defense.

This idea that he makes his team better is a myth. I think you guys are the only ones who haven't seen Perkins play since the trade. It's ugly to watch. It's bad, and he hurts the Thunder.

Not trading away a bad player that evidently causes losing for a one percent chance at winning the finals would have been irresponsible and bad of Ainge. GM's make decisions based on differential (like whether to buy or sell) and Ainge knew his team couldn't compete for a title so he made a move for the future. He's smart. Having Perkins in the series vs the Grizzlies instead of Green absolutely killed the Thunder this year. If they actually had a big man who could do more than stand around and scowl like a moron, plus Jeff Green who can create his offense and zip the ball around the court that series would not have ended in five games.

We're not gonna see eye-to-eye on the value of Perkins, but pertaining to the trade, I'll simply say this: a starting center (not elite; top 25), Nate Robinson (whose been worthy of 6MOTY votes on every team since New York), Marquis Daniels (capable bench role player), and a couple d-leaguers for Jeff Green (a better 6th man than Nate, but not dramatically), Nenad Kristic (best suited for backup center minutes), a little cash for the owner, and some midrange draft picks is a wash at best and a huge mistake at worst for Boston. Danny Ainge is an above-average GM, but this was not one of his better moves. The Celtics will acquire 5 more Green's before they find another Perkins. Starting centers on contenders either cost big free agent money or lucky as hell draft picks (lottery or a talented player slipping). The Warriors picked up Draymond Green in the 2nd round. Given 25 minutes on Boston, I guarantee he puts up 12/6/2 like Jeff... Probably with an extra couple rebounds. Tweener defenders are not hard to find.

The Thunder became championship caliber after the trade, with Durant going to his proper position of SF, instead of SG like he had played earlier in his career. Ibaka was the biggest beneficiary of that trade, starting and eveloping quickly into one of the best young PFs there is. Celtics went backwards, as the wins showed.

Interesting Blackfoot what you think of the Warriors' trade of Richmond for Owens just before the start of the 1991-92 season? Wins show that the Warriors got better. What is your take?

Exactly! They made a future move while in win-now mode. .01% chance? R u high? This is a team that was on a tear that season, before the trade, and had just come off of what should've been a Finals victory the season before if the refs weren't on Kobe's jock in game 6. It's all about the context. Hmm let's trade away our Finals starting lineup for this clever "future" move that makes so much sense. Future is unknown, Rondo probably wants to bolt, Green is anything but a sure-thing, and the Celtics look to be in the lottery for the next few years. Great "future." This was such a Cohan move. When you're in win-now mode, you do win-now things, and Ainge destroyed their chance at a title with this single move. Ask Doc Rivers what he thinks about this trade.

Rondo DOES wanna bolt. And all the Boston beat writers were citing how ruffled his feathers were when the Celts traded his fellow young core member (and best friend on the roster), Kendrick Perkins, for a tweener with a bum ticker.

Of course, if I recall correctly, BF doesn't see the value in Rondo either...

rockyBeli wrote:Exactly! They made a future move while in win-now mode. .01% chance? R u high? This is a team that was on a tear that season, before the trade, and had just come off of what should've been a Finals victory the season before if the refs weren't on Kobe's jock in game 6. It's all about the context. Hmm let's trade away our Finals starting lineup for this clever "future" move that makes so much sense. Future is unknown, Rondo probably wants to bolt, Green is anything but a sure-thing, and the Celtics look to be in the lottery for the next few years. Great "future." This was such a Cohan move. When you're in win-now mode, you do win-now things, and Ainge destroyed their chance at a title with this single move. Ask Doc Rivers what he thinks about this trade.

A team has never won a title without a top five player and a top five defensive caliber player. The Celtics had neither. Coming off a finals victory doesn't change that.

Sports are ever changing and the same line up year to year doesn't produce the same results. This line up showed that the next year.

As for the bold, this would have happened with or without Perkins. And, the Celtics are set up for a fantastic rebuild. They are going to get good picks and they are set up to get a first rounder from the Nets right when they will start to do their rebuild.

Not only was this move smart by Ainge, but it's still smart. He didn't trade Jason Richardson for Brandan Wright. He didn't trade Vince Carter for Jamison. He traded a player who is god awful right now and commanding ten million a year.

Not only did they not throw away a championship run, but they avoided paying a shitty player ten million a year.

Perkins now? Nope. Then? While in the midst of a title run? Hell yeah.

I guess it's just different philosophies. If a team is in win-now mode... then my thinking is they should stick to it.

When you trade away a significant piece of the team (a piece that landed you in 2 previous finals appearances mind you)...WHILE you are telling the rest of your team and the fans "hey let's try to win it all," it sends mixed messages, decreases trust in the FO, and overall hurts team chemistry.......which is exactly what happened.

Losing Perkins for nothing or seeing how FA process goes > Throwing away title run